[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1161266225.11264.13.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:57:05 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johnstul@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: + i386-time-avoid-pit-smp-lockups.patch added to -mm tree
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:47 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 19 October 2006 15:44, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 14:26 -0700, akpm@...l.org wrote:
> >
> > > diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/i8253.c~i386-time-avoid-pit-smp-lockups arch/i386/kernel/i8253.c
> > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/i8253.c~i386-time-avoid-pit-smp-lockups
> > > +++ a/arch/i386/kernel/i8253.c
> > > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static struct clocksource clocksource_pi
> > >
> > > static int __init init_pit_clocksource(void)
> > > {
> > > - if (num_possible_cpus() > 4) /* PIT does not scale! */
> > > + if (num_possible_cpus() > 1) /* PIT does not scale! */
> > > return 0;
> > >
> >
> > Can we ifdef some code here on CONFIG_SMP . It bugs me that there just
> > dead code laying around on smp systems.
>
> The optimizer should optimize it all out since num_possible_cpus() is a 0
> constant on UP.
You just mean the if statement above though? I was talking more about
the structure above this called "clocksource_pit" which isn't used on
SMP systems due to this code addition. AFAIK init_pit_clocksource()
could disappear along with the clocksource structure ..
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists